deadken posted:

here's an idea. the idiot brit jihad tourist guy they got to do the execution totally fucked it up and spent about 15 mins feebly trying to hack through cartilage with his tiny knife and generally looking like a total amateur, so isis cut out that part of the footage and cut to the body while they told joe al-bloggs to stop wasting hostages

in marine corps recurit training there's a room with mannequin heads attached to poles which swivel with a latch on them. you have to twist the heads with enough force to defeat the latch, which presumably is the force necessary to snap someone's neck and kill them

blinkandwheeze posted:

are there any posts anyone wants frontpaged i havent really been reading the forum lately

I saw a post that should be frontpaged but I forgot what it was. Hope this helps.

Lessons posted:

swampman posted:

We may be at war, and our targets may include Syrian civilian infrastructure and Syrian civilians within Syrian borders, but that does NOT mean we are at war with Syria, we are just fighting in Syria to change Syria, it may be a full scale military action from air, land, and sea, against the best armed military that claims the majority of Syrian territory, so to have a more pro western regime control syria, but don't you dare call it a war because, not a war.

None of this is actually happening though.

lol

Airstrikes in Syria would also draw the White House more deeply into a conflict from which it has sought to maintain some distance. But there is also risk in not acting, because it is very difficult to defeat a militant group that is allowed to maintain a sanctuary.

O dam that would suck huh. Shit oh well.

tpaine posted:

LOVE the drake!!

Crow posted:

Lessons posted:

daddyholes posted:

WHO WAS THE PEOPLE ON HERE SAYING THIS INVADE SYRIA SHIT WANST REAL. WHO WAS IT. WHERE ARE YOU. RRRMMM M COME ON HEJRE YOU BROWN MOSES DUCKFUCKERS. SCUTTLE ON OUT

We "invaded" to fight the rebels lol.

wait who's 'We' again

I was quoting daddyholes duder.

Crow posted:

So do you have any evidence that the US state did a total 180 due to the release of one video and is now solely attacking the same people that they armed and funded to overthrow Syria? Or are you just going to take them at their own word?

The explanation for the US launching incursions into Syria to "fight its own rebels" is simply a pretext for an operation in Syria with an eye towards elementary mission creep. What is your convoluted explanation for NATO to otherwise act schizophrenically and without any sort of strategic vision?

I'm suggesting that US support for the ISIS was never as great as you assumed, as evidenced not only by the fact they're fighting them now but also that they spent 8 years fighting them back when they were al Qaeda in Iraq. There was never a 180 but rather US (violent) opposition to ISIS has been more or less consistent since its inception, with the only gap being between the US withdrawal from Iraq in Dec 2011 to now. Incidentally I'd also suggest that US support for the rest of the rebels hasn't been as great as you assumed either considering despite the supposed mountains of cash and flood of arms the US has been giving them they've not only failed to overthrown the government but actually been pushed back on all fronts, while ISIS, without US support, more or less just rolled up and achieved more in a few months than they have in years. Decisive US support for the rebels probably could have ended the civil war long ago.

And yes, obviously the US is only striking ISIS targets in Iraq rather than Syrian because there aren't any Syrian targets to strike in Iraq. I don't want to speculate what might happen in a hypothetical US campaign in Syria because it's, well, hypothetical, and speculative. There doesn't seem to be any mission creep from the Foley operation so far.

In any case I am completely opposed to the current US military intervention in Iraq as well as any potential expansion of that intervention, whether it's into Syria or merely intensifying its operations in Iraq. I'm concerned about the war propaganda that's being deployed here, not just in the case of Foley but also the Yazidis, Mosul Dam, etc., which unfortunately seems to be working in this case as opposed to the response to the aborted strikes following Ghouta which were met with widespread skepticism and outright hostility by the US public. It's quite likely the US is going to escalate here and they'll be entering with a buffer of public support they haven't had since 2003. Urgent action by anti-imperialists is necessary to educate the public about the realities of American imperialism even in cases like this, to concretely oppose the US's efforts, and to analyze the situation as it develops to determine the best way to accomplish these goals. At the moment I don't agree with your strategy here because I expect "US supports ISIS, this is just a ploy to attack Syria" is more likely to confuse and alienate potential allies than it is to rally them, and I also think it happens to be untrue. That's really all I have to say about it because we've basically already been over all of this before and the convo just tended to devolve into divisive mud-slinging rather than constructive criticism and self-criticism, let alone consensus.

Lessons posted:

*US aids Syrian rebels* This is war against Syria. *US bombs Syrian rebels* This is war against Syria. *bombings are actually happening in Iraq, not Syria* This is war against Syria. *Alex eats egg salad sandwich for breakfast* This is war against Syria.

this but unironically, unironically

Foley murder video 'may have been staged'

Analysts believe the British jihadi in the video may not have been James Foley's killer, although it is accepted that the journalist was murdered

The video of James Foley’s execution may have been staged, with the actual murder taking place off-camera, it has emerged.

Forensic analysis of the footage of the journalist’s death has suggested that the British jihadist in the film may have been the frontman rather than the killer.

The clip, which apparently depicts Mr Foley’s brutal beheading, has been widely seen as a propaganda coup for Islamic State miltant group.

But a study of the four-minute 40-second clip, carried out by an international forensic science company which has worked for police forces across Britain, suggested camera trickery and slick post-production techniques appear to have been used.

A forensic analyst told The Times that no blood can be seen, even though the knife is drawn across the neck area at least six times.

“After enhancements, the knife can be seen to be drawn across the upper neck at least six times, with no blood evidence to the point the picture fades to black,” the analysis said.

Sounds allegedly made by Foley do not appear consistent with what may be expected.

During Foley’s speech, there appears to be a blip which could indicate the journalist had to repeat a line.

One expert commissioned to examine the footage was reported as saying: “I think it has been staged. My feeling is that the execution may have happened after the camera was stopped.”

However the company, which requested anonymity, did not reach a definitive answer.

It concluded: “No one is disputing that at some point an execution occurred.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/bill-gardner/11054488/Foley-murder-video-may-have-been-staged.html